Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'active' filter and the dependency on a selected university, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't disclose return shape or ordering, but those are less critical for a simple read-only list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and scope, with a clear purpose clause. No filler or repetition of the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is sufficient: it tells what is listed, the active filter, and why it is called. Annotations cover safety, and no output schema is present but the name and description imply a list of campuses. Missing pagination and field details are minor in this low-complexity context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter semantics, and it partially does by saying 'for a selected university,' linking university_id to a prior selection. It doesn't spell out that the ID should come from search_universities, but the single integer parameter is straightforward and the description gives enough context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active campuses for a selected university'), and ties it to a concrete workflow step ('refine the room search'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_universities or search_rooms.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the tool is used after a university has been selected and for the purpose of refining a room search, giving clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps with listing campuses.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.